Knapp v. Mitternight Boiler Works, Inc.

Citations: 693 So. 2d 506; 1997 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 256; 1997 WL 155282Docket: 2951338

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; April 3, 1997; Alabama; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Terry Wayne Knapp filed a workers' compensation claim against Mitternight Boiler Works, Inc., alleging a lower back injury sustained on February 8, 1995, during work. The trial court, after an ore tenus proceeding, ruled that Knapp failed to demonstrate legal and medical causation, resulting in a denial of benefits, prompting Knapp to appeal. This case falls under the new Workers' Compensation Act, which stipulates that appellate review does not presume correctness of trial court findings but will uphold them if supported by substantial evidence. The term "substantial evidence" is defined as evidence that fair-minded individuals could reasonably interpret as supporting the sought fact. 

Knapp, age 34 at the hearing, had worked at Mitternight since January 1988 and had previously reported several work-related back injuries. In 1990, he sustained a back injury, received benefits, and was treated by Dr. James West, who later released him to work without restrictions. Subsequent incidents were reported, including a 1992 herniated disc that did not result in a work-related claim. On February 6, 1995, Knapp left work due to back pain but did not report a work injury and instead mentioned to colleagues that he had hurt his back lifting his child. He subsequently sought chiropractic treatment from Dr. John Wetzel, detailing significant pain and difficulties with daily activities.

Knapp took annual leave due to back pain and visited Dr. Wetzel for treatment, scheduling a follow-up appointment for February 8, 1995. On that date, while operating a cherry picker at work, Knapp experienced a back injury, causing him to fall to his knees. He completed his task but did not report the injury to his supervisor, stating he would return when his back improved. Instead, he went directly to Dr. Wetzel and did not return to work thereafter. Knapp continued regular visits to Dr. Wetzel and showed improvement until re-injuring his back on February 12, 1995. On February 13, he inquired about light-duty work but did not disclose a work-related injury or seek workers' compensation benefits. His wife requested disability insurance forms from Mitternight’s insurance clerk, who confirmed that such insurance did not cover work-related injuries and would not have provided the forms had she known of the work-related claim. Mitternight had a policy requiring employees to seek treatment from an approved physician for work-related injuries, which Knapp did not follow after February 8. His medical expenses were partially covered by the group health insurer. On February 17, Knapp told Dr. Cope about his injury on February 8 but omitted prior back issues and injuries. Dr. Cope could not confirm that Knapp's disc problems were caused by the alleged work injury. Later, Dr. Hudgens assessed Knapp and determined he had reached maximum medical improvement by September 5, 1995, attributing a 5% permanent impairment. He was unaware of Knapp's prior back pain. Vocational evaluations indicated a 45% to 50% loss of earning capacity due to back issues. For a claim to be compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act, both legal and medical causation must be established.

Legal causation must be established first, demonstrating that an accident occurred during employment. Following that, medical causation must be shown, proving the accident caused the injury for which recovery is sought. In this case, the court found that Knapp failed to establish both legal and medical causation regarding his back condition and loss of earning ability linked to his employment at Mitternight. Evidence indicated that Knapp reported injuring his back while lifting his child, with no connection to his work activities. Additionally, his back condition reportedly improved until a separate incident of catching a pig occurred days later, which was not part of his job duties.

Knapp's previous medical history revealed no disc herniation from a work-related injury in 1990 and a diagnosis of a herniated disc in 1992 due to unrelated back pain. Before the alleged work injury on February 8, 1995, he was already experiencing back pain and undergoing chiropractic treatment. The chiropractor noted that Knapp had ongoing issues that affected his daily activities prior to the alleged incident, and his condition showed improvement until shortly after the pig-catching incident.

No medical expert could affirm that Knapp's pain was due to the work accident. Although a pre-existing condition does not bar recovery if the employee was capable of performing their duties before the injury, evidence demonstrated that Knapp was unable to perform his work duties in the days leading up to the alleged injury. Since Knapp could not prove he was fit for work before the injury, any disability resulting from the incident would not increase his employer's liability, as the law stipulates that an employer is only liable for the portion of disability attributable to the accident, excluding the effects of pre-existing conditions. Even assuming the accident occurred as claimed, Knapp did not show an increase in his degree of disability as a result.

Evidence indicated that [Knapp] had a pre-existing condition that led to his inability to work for two days before the alleged accident on February 8, 1995. A vocational specialist confirmed that [Knapp’s] vocational impairment was solely due to these pre-existing conditions. Even assuming [Knapp] was involved in an accident during his employment, the Court determined that his disability and loss of earning capacity were not exacerbated by the incident. After reviewing all evidence and testimony, the Court concluded that [Knapp] did not sustain an injury related to his employment with [Mitternight] on the specified date. The Court also found that [Knapp’s] back pain and any associated disability were not connected to his employment. The trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence, leading to the affirmation of the judgment. Judges MONROE, CRAWLEY, and THOMPSON concurred, while ROBERTSON, P.J. concurred only in the result.